Appendix 1: Results Management at the Country Level
Development results are achieved at the country level and must be measured,
monitored, and managed at the country level. Achieving country development
outcomes helps improve the quality of life of poor people. Results management
in this context requires a clear understanding of exactly what development
results are desired and how those results will be assessed. Among the
key elements of effective results management at the country level are
the following:
- enhanced country diagnostics, especially with regard to poverty assessment;
- alignment with and use of country systems;
- harmonization among development agencies/donors;
- development of selective and focused programs;
- careful attention to tracking and actively managing a particular
agency’s contribution to key development outcomes.
In most developing
countries, the inputs provided by a development finance institutions such
as the Asian Development Bank represent only a tiny fraction of total
investment in the country.
Results management at the country level should be understood in terms
of the complex nature of national development outcomes. It is essential
to recognize that the assistance provided by any particular development
agency is highly unlikely to lead directly to country-level development
results; instead, they are the aggregate impact of investments and inputs
from many sources—the developing country’s government, the
private sector, and multilateral and bilateral development agencies. The
key for any particular agency is to understand the impact of its own inputs/investments
and the contributions they are making to the desired development results.
In order to illustrate how results management can be implemented at the
country level, this appendix describes how the Asian Development Bank
(ADB) designs and implements its results-based country strategies and
programs (RB-CSPs).
The principles presented flow naturally out of the early discussion on
results frameworks and monitoring and evaluation systems.
ADB has taken a number of significant steps for implementing country
leadership and ownership policies. The Resident Mission Policy recognizes
the importance of local knowledge and capacities and calls for stronger
client and partnership orientation. New business processes emphasize
the primacy of the country strategy and program (CSP) in guiding ADB
operations.
The recent practice note on results-based CSPs focuses on the CSP outcomes
that are expected to be achieved during the CSP period and the need
to develop mechanisms and indicators for monitoring progress toward
achievement of those outcomes. A results-based CSP is developed and
implemented based on detailed discussions with the government and other
development partners.
Compared with the traditional methodology, the results-based CSP further
emphasizes
- alignment with the country-owned development strategy
- a realistic and selective development approach rather than an ideal and comprehensive
approach
- achievement of development impact on the ground rather
than preparation of the strategy document itself, (iv) outcome monitoring
rather than input control
- coordinated assistance among development
partners rather than an isolated individual intervention
Country Ownership and Leadership
Ideally, governments will take the lead in crafting their own national
development strategies. There are a growing number of poverty reduction
strategy papers (PRSPs) in the region, for example, the National Poverty
Reduction Strategy of Cambodia, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper of
Nepal, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper of Pakistan, and the Comprehensive
Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy of Viet Nam. In each case, governments
and their development partners are refocusing their efforts on results
management, including developing sector and thematic road maps, project-level
results frameworks, and capacity-development results frameworks.
ADB’s RB-CSPs are grounded in country-owned priorities and rely
on extensive stakeholder consultations. These principles were evident
in developing the first RB-CSP in Nepal, a process that involved extensive
consultations to identify expected results and comprehensive analysis
of how to achieve those results. In Bangladesh, ADB developed an RB-CSP
based on unprecedented stakeholder consultations and donor coordination
(among ADB, Japan, United Kingdom, and the World Bank). Similarly, the
development of Viet Nam’s RB-CSP is taking place within the context
of close alignment among five banks (World Bank, Japan Bank for International
Cooperation, ADB, Agence Français de Développement, and
KfW Bankengruppe).
 Top
Alignment
RB-CSPs must be aligned with the development objectives defined by the
developing member country (DMC) government in its national poverty reduction
strategy (NPRS). In many DMCs, these take the form of PRSPs; in countries
that do not have a PRSP, those development objectives are usually stated
in a national development plan. In this context, the RB-CSP must clearly
show how ADB’s assistance will effectively contribute to achieving
the country’s development and poverty reduction goals as well as
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Different strategies are required to achieve alignment in different DMCs
depending on such factors as the quality of development planning and clarity
of the NPRS. If national development priorities are already clearly articulated,
the RB-CSP process can concentrate on such issues as how to leverage ADB’s
comparative advantages, how best to support government priorities, and
how to ensure harmonization with the programs of development partners.
When the government’s development strategies are not sufficiently
prioritized, the RB-CSP process may need to begin by engaging the government
and stakeholders in dialogue about the tradeoffs involved in prioritizing
certain objectives over others. The results of macroeconomic and poverty
assessments need to be carefully studied and, as necessary, clearly communicated
to stakeholder groups. In other words, consensus must be built regarding
the most effective uses of ADB investments to achieve agreed development
objectives.
Top
Harmnonization
ADB is fully committed to harmonization, one of the key principles of
the Paris Declaration. ADB collaborates closely with other development
partners in the development of its RB-CSPs. Examples include regular consultations
with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations
Development Programme, and the European Union. In certain sectors, ADB
works with specialized agencies of the United Nations and with bilateral
development agencies. ADB often takes on a leading role in donor coordination
in DMCs where it has a comparative advantage and/or when requested to
do so by the government.
The process of collaborating on country programming also helps scale
up government capacity. The first step is often a joint strategic planning
retreat, with the government taking the lead and major development partners
participating. Development partners work together to reach consensus on
desired development results, responsibilities for diagnostic work, and
the respective outputs to be produced by various development partners.
A key step is to develop a joint results framework supported by the government
and agreed to by stakeholders and development partners. Developing the
framework requires comprehensive strategic analysis; some of the tools
often used are strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT),
problem trees, mind maps, and logframes. Once the framework is in place,
each development agency can align its strategy and program with it in
a manner reflecting respective comparative advantages and resource availability.
ADB is also developing and implementing its measurement and monitoring
systems in close collaboration with strategic partners. In sectors and
thematic areas where donors and other development partners have common
interests, sector and thematic results are monitored and evaluated jointly
whenever possible. This commitment to harmonization helps lower transaction
costs for DMCs and facilitates comparative analysis.
Top
The Asian Development Bank’s Results Based-Country
Strategy and Program
In general, the RB-CSP does the following:
- clearly identifies desired development results, intermediate outcomes,
and outputs to be produced;
- describes a credible plan for achieving those outputs and outcomes;
- specifies time-bound indicators and targets.
The RB-CSP defines the expected changes in the lives of beneficiaries
(especially the poor), including measurable indicators and links between
the activities/projects described in the CSP and desired results. The
RB-CSP acknowledges the development constraints under which ADB must operate
and specifies the country-level outcomes that ADB’s assistance will
help to achieve during the CSP period.
Results framework. At the core of the RB-CSP is a results
framework laying out the logical relationships between ADB’s interventions
and the DMC’s development goals. As described in chapters 1 and
2, the framework is a critically important planning and management tool
that clearly identifies links between strategic development goals, the
outcomes that are directly influenced by ADB’s CSP, and the key
results required for those outcomes to be attained. Developing the framework
is in itself an important learning and capacity development intervention
as it forces participants to critically examine the strategy, particularly
with regard to selectivity and focus. A sound results framework improves
the design of the CSP and the quality of management decisions and leads
to better results.
Monitoring and evaluation. It is essential that a reliable
monitoring and evaluation system be embedded in the results framework,
with clearly specified indicators and reporting mechanisms. Wherever possible,
indicators from government systems are used, although in all cases the
indicators selected should be consistent with those used by the government.
In developing appropriate indicators, ADB consults closely with the government
(especially the executing agency but often with other agencies as well)
and development partners to develop a short list of key indicators. These
are often derived from NPRS monitoring indicators, the International Development
Association’s 14 country-level indicators and the MDG indicators,
but also take into account other indicators to assess the achievement
of results.
Monitoring and evaluation systems should also be harmonized with those
of other donors. In this context, ADB and its development partners work
closely with the government to determine reliable baselines, to assess
overall data quality, and to develop objective assessments of the government’s
capacity. It is also essential that donor monitoring and evaluation requirements
are harmonized in order to lower the burden on country capacity.
Capacity development. One of the major challenges faced
by development agencies is that despite international commitments, actually
using country systems is often constrained by lack of government capacity.
Capacity is generally understood as the ability of people, organizations
and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully. Capacity
development can be defined as “the process whereby people, organizations,
and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt, and maintain
capacity over time.”
Capacity development is critical not only to the public sector but also
to the private sector and to non government /civil society organizations.
Based on an understanding that organizational effectiveness is affected
by external influences and relationships, approaches to capacity development
need to be multi-dimensional and include (i) institutional development;
(ii) organizational development; and (iii) client relations, network,
and partnership development.
Capacity development is a prerequisite for moving toward true country
ownership of partner-funded development projects. The needs are many and
range from helping governments to develop modern and reliable information
systems to strengthening financial management systems at the provincial
and district levels to building technical capacities at all levels of
government. Any capacity development effort should build on a systematic
assessment of the existing capacity. Different guides and tools have been
developed to provide assistance for doing this; for instance, A
Guide for Conducting a Rapid Assessment of the Capacity of Developing
Member Countries to Manage for Results.
Capacity development and knowledge sharing. Achieving
development effectiveness requires sustainable country capacities in such
areas as strategic planning, public financial management, monitoring and
evaluation, and statistical reporting. Consistent with the identification
of capacity development as a new thematic priority in its enhanced Poverty
Reduction Strategy, ADB provides technical assistance to strengthen the
results orientation of public sector management and to develop statistical
capacity at the country level. ADB works closely with the World Bank to
improve statistical capacity under the umbrella of the Marrakech Action
Plan for Statistics (MAPS). Knowledge sharing at the regional level is
supported through the Community of Practice
in Managing for Development Results in the Asia and Pacific Region.
Also supporting capacity development is the Managing
for Development Results Cooperation Fund that supports pilot DMC initiatives
promoting results-based approaches and techniques in public sector management.
Implementing results-oriented CSPs requires major changes in knowledge,
attitudes, practices, organizational culture, tools, techniques, and incentives.
This process takes time and can only succeed when supported by steady
improvements in institutional capacities, policies, and procedures. Follow-up
measures will be required to build this capacity and to ensure that policies
and procedures encourage good RB-CSP practices.
Next: Appendix 2: Results Management
at the Project Level
|
Publications 
RSS Feeds